A Time for Catholic Action and Catholic Voices
January 25, 2012
Archbishop José H. Gomez
Last Thursday in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a remarkable address to a group of visiting American bishops. He praised America’s founders for their commitment to religious liberty and their belief that Judeo-Christian moral teachings are essential to shaping citizens and democratic institutions. The Holy Father warned that our heritage of religious freedom faces “grave threats” from the “radical secularism” of political and cultural opinion leaders who are “increasingly hostile to Christianity.”
Last Friday, the day after the Pope’s address, our federal government issued a ruling that confirmed his worst fears about our country’s anti-religious and anti-Christian drift. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a final decision to mandate that every U.S. employer must provide health insurance coverage that makes birth control, sterilization, and even abortion-causing drugs available to its employees free of charge.
The government rejected the U.S. bishops’ efforts to negotiate an exemption for faith-based employers—including Catholic hospitals, charities and colleges—that are morally opposed to abortion and contraception. Instead, the government is giving us until August 2013 to obey or suffer the consequences—fines so large they could drive some Catholic employers out of business. It is hard not to see this new mandate as a direct attack on Catholic consciences and the freedom of our Catholic institutions.
The mandate does not promote any civil liberties and it does not advance any significant public health goals. The government justifies the mandate by arguing that employers who do not provide these services are discriminating against women. But access to free contraception has never been a basic human right. And there is no evidence that birth control has any effect on women’s health; pregnancy is not a disease for which “preventive medicine” is required.
The Health Department justifies denying exemptions to Catholic charities, hospitals, and colleges because it says they are not really “religious” institutions. This may be the most troubling part of this new mandate. In effect, the government is presuming it has the competence and authority to define what religious faith is and how believers should express their faith commitments and relationship to God in society. These are powers our government has never before assumed itself to have.
In this case, the government is imposing a narrow, radically individualistic idea of religion—defining religion as only worship and moral teaching. As many have noted, under this definition, much of what Jesus Christ did would not qualify as a “religious” ministry. The fact is that everything the Church does is “religious.” All our ministries and institutions are motivated by our love for God and our mission to the spread the Gospel. We don’t do these things because we are social workers or philanthropists. We do them because we are disciples.
The Catholic Church is the only visible religious group in American public life that holds consistent beliefs regarding the morality of life issues, including abortion and contraception. And Catholic institutions make a major contribution to our social fabric—healing, educating, and caring for the needs of millions of our fellow citizens, especially the poor. So it is hard to escape the conclusion that the government is singling out the Church with this new mandate.
But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church. They go to the heart of our national identity and our historic understanding of our democratic form of government. In his address last Thursday, Pope Benedict gave us some prophetic advice for these troubling times:
Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.
There will be much more to say about this in the weeks ahead. But this much is clear at the present moment: Now is a time for Catholic action and for Catholic voices. We need lay leaders to step up to their responsibilities for the Church’s mission. Not only to defend our faith and our rights as Catholics, but to be leaders for moral and civic renewal, leaders in helping to shape the values and moral foundations of America’s future.
José H. Gomez is Archbishop of Los Angeles. He writes regularly at: www.facebook.com/ArchbishopGomez.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.25.2012 | 7:53am
Felapton says:
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a final decision to mandate that every U.S. employer must provide health insurance coverage that makes birth control, sterilization, and even abortion-causing drugs available to its employees free of charge."
This statement is false. No employer is being required to provide health insurance. In fact, a lot of employers do not and will not under the ACA. (Some state laws do require it of some employers.)
Why would the Archbishop of Los Angeles say something that is patently false? Is his staff deceiving him? Is he trying to deceive "lay leaders", to make them lobby their Congressmen? Is there nobody on his staff bright enough to understand how the health insurance system works? How seriously should the bishops' pronouncements on the health system be taken if they aren't even aware that many people do not have health insurance provided by their employers?
I'm disappointed. There are not many bishops I admire, but Gomez is one I do.
This statement is false. No employer is being required to provide health insurance. In fact, a lot of employers do not and will not under the ACA. (Some state laws do require it of some employers.)
Why would the Archbishop of Los Angeles say something that is patently false? Is his staff deceiving him? Is he trying to deceive "lay leaders", to make them lobby their Congressmen? Is there nobody on his staff bright enough to understand how the health insurance system works? How seriously should the bishops' pronouncements on the health system be taken if they aren't even aware that many people do not have health insurance provided by their employers?
I'm disappointed. There are not many bishops I admire, but Gomez is one I do.
1.25.2012 | 8:23am
maineman says:
Let's be clear about what's happening here. This is a move by the state religion to punish those who violate its dogma and to whip everyone into shape. If we don't neutralize these guys or get rid of them soon, we can expect religious persecution to ramp up exponentially from this point on.
1.25.2012 | 9:43am
maineman says:
Felapton, you rationalize, I think. The Bishop is talking about reality rather than appearances.
Given the tenets of Obiecare, all must be covered and all must have prizes. If an employer is not mandated, as you allege, then that would just push them over to the state system, which is under the direction of the state religion. Same end result, no?
Still, I find your contention dubious in its essence, given that the clear intent of our betters is to force us one and all to do what they say. Is there really any doubt that, even if there is no current mandate, there will eventually be one, or at least that one is intended to eventually be imposed?
Given the tenets of Obiecare, all must be covered and all must have prizes. If an employer is not mandated, as you allege, then that would just push them over to the state system, which is under the direction of the state religion. Same end result, no?
Still, I find your contention dubious in its essence, given that the clear intent of our betters is to force us one and all to do what they say. Is there really any doubt that, even if there is no current mandate, there will eventually be one, or at least that one is intended to eventually be imposed?
1.25.2012 | 10:10am
mcasey says:
Bishop Gomez, and some commentators, are crossing deep into the field of hyperbole here. Religious persecution? Allowing some employers to allow some women to make reproductive choices about their bodies is not the same as burning heretics or locking priests in the Bastille. If the sky is falling in American Catholicism it isn't because of external government "persecution", but the shocking lack of recognition within the Church itself of the depravity in its own ranks. That the Church, given the sins of its clergy, is still blaming its demise on a government trying to get people medical care, strikes many people as dangerous hypocrisy.
Crying about persecution only makes this dissonance worse. Maybe admitting sin and humbly going about penance would strengthen Catholicism in this country. But pretending the Church's problems are caused by external persecution makes it all seem like a mean joke.
Crying about persecution only makes this dissonance worse. Maybe admitting sin and humbly going about penance would strengthen Catholicism in this country. But pretending the Church's problems are caused by external persecution makes it all seem like a mean joke.
1.25.2012 | 11:05am
Felapton says:
"Same end result, no?"
No. The Catholic institution's conscience would not be compromised by having paid for it.
"Is there really any doubt that, even if there is no current mandate, there will eventually be one, or at least that one is intended to eventually be imposed?"
A mandate on employers? No, I don't think it will go that way. It would kill small business, and small business accounts for a lot of jobs.
No. The Catholic institution's conscience would not be compromised by having paid for it.
"Is there really any doubt that, even if there is no current mandate, there will eventually be one, or at least that one is intended to eventually be imposed?"
A mandate on employers? No, I don't think it will go that way. It would kill small business, and small business accounts for a lot of jobs.
1.25.2012 | 12:09pm
Francis J. Beckwith says:
Mcasey writes: "Allowing some employers to allow some women to make reproductive choices about their bodies is not the same as burning heretics or locking priests in the Bastille." That is true, but not relevant to the argument at hand. For example, taxing citizens to pay for Congregationalist ministers, to which President Jefferson objected in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, is "not the same as burning heretics or locking priests in the Bastille." But no one today would suggest that President Jefferson's complaint did not have merit simply because it was not an example of a far worse sort of religious persecution. An injustice need not have to be the worst injustice to be an injustice. Blocking the entry of a synagogue is not not wrong simply because it is not the Holocaust.
But, of course, the issue at hand is not about "allowing some employers to allow some women to make reproductive choices about their bodies." Rather, it is about the government not allowing some employers who provide health benefits from abstaining from offering material support to activities that they believe are immoral. If you think that abortion and contraception are legitimate "choices," then you should extend that understanding of choice to those who, as a matter of conscience, cannot pay for, assist, or participate in these activities. A government that claims to be a liberal democracy that cannot accommodate such minimal tolerance is a liberal democracy in name only.
But, of course, the issue at hand is not about "allowing some employers to allow some women to make reproductive choices about their bodies." Rather, it is about the government not allowing some employers who provide health benefits from abstaining from offering material support to activities that they believe are immoral. If you think that abortion and contraception are legitimate "choices," then you should extend that understanding of choice to those who, as a matter of conscience, cannot pay for, assist, or participate in these activities. A government that claims to be a liberal democracy that cannot accommodate such minimal tolerance is a liberal democracy in name only.
1.25.2012 | 12:25pm
hfresh says:
Thank you for this well articulated article Archbishop. This truly is a grave issue. As one of the above commentators noted, there is an option to deny insurance to employees, but this option seems ludicrous given that many the questioned institutions will be hospitals. Than these very same employees now forced into Obamacare may not even be able to treated at their own hospital.
Further, others who wish to claim that allowing employees reproductive rights isn't really very severe, is precisely the problem and the flawed logic. Catholics value life from the moment of conception and therefore regard birth control as an abortifacient. They are left with either provide no insurance or violate their conscience. The federal government does not have the right to regulate consciences. Others may not see as a non-issue, but that's democracy. Our values and therefore actions differ. Pope Benedict and the archbishop are right to outcry this decision. This is precisely the "dictatorship of relativism" warned of by the Pope.
Further, others who wish to claim that allowing employees reproductive rights isn't really very severe, is precisely the problem and the flawed logic. Catholics value life from the moment of conception and therefore regard birth control as an abortifacient. They are left with either provide no insurance or violate their conscience. The federal government does not have the right to regulate consciences. Others may not see as a non-issue, but that's democracy. Our values and therefore actions differ. Pope Benedict and the archbishop are right to outcry this decision. This is precisely the "dictatorship of relativism" warned of by the Pope.
1.25.2012 | 2:03pm
Pat says:
Felapton, you're wrong and you're clouding the issue. I wonder why...
Here's a link from Bloomberg for your clarification:
http://www.bna.com/hhs-says-religiousaffiliated-n12884907468/
"Sebelius said that nonprofit employers “who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until Aug. 1, 2013, to comply.” Employers who want the extra year must certify that they qualify for the delay, Sebelius said."
"Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive services must be covered without requiring policyholders to make cost-sharing payments. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance under the law or pay penalties for not doing so.
Organizations such as churches, which might not cover contraceptive services for employees because of religious objections, still are exempt from the requirement, government officials said during a background briefing with reporters.
Primary and secondary schools affiliated with religious organizations could be exempt from the requirement, but universities, charities, hospitals and other entities affiliated with religious organizations must come into compliance in 2013, an official said. “Some schools are very, very closely associated with a church,” such as parish schools, the official said. Religious organizations that are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptives must meet criteria in the final rule determining their eligibility, the official said."
And on the question a mandate on employers, it's all ready there as long as the business has 50 or more employees which incidentally that is a small business. Also definitely a Catholic institution's dogma, faith and conscience would be violated if they paid for this part of health insurance.
It's time to cut the mustard. I am Catholic. Either we live by our faith or we do not. And in this one, I stand beside the Catholic Church and not my government, especially since the government has decided to throw away the constitution. This is so wrong.
Here's a link from Bloomberg for your clarification:
http://www.bna.com/hhs-says-religiousaffiliated-n12884907468/
"Sebelius said that nonprofit employers “who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until Aug. 1, 2013, to comply.” Employers who want the extra year must certify that they qualify for the delay, Sebelius said."
"Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive services must be covered without requiring policyholders to make cost-sharing payments. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance under the law or pay penalties for not doing so.
Organizations such as churches, which might not cover contraceptive services for employees because of religious objections, still are exempt from the requirement, government officials said during a background briefing with reporters.
Primary and secondary schools affiliated with religious organizations could be exempt from the requirement, but universities, charities, hospitals and other entities affiliated with religious organizations must come into compliance in 2013, an official said. “Some schools are very, very closely associated with a church,” such as parish schools, the official said. Religious organizations that are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptives must meet criteria in the final rule determining their eligibility, the official said."
And on the question a mandate on employers, it's all ready there as long as the business has 50 or more employees which incidentally that is a small business. Also definitely a Catholic institution's dogma, faith and conscience would be violated if they paid for this part of health insurance.
It's time to cut the mustard. I am Catholic. Either we live by our faith or we do not. And in this one, I stand beside the Catholic Church and not my government, especially since the government has decided to throw away the constitution. This is so wrong.
1.25.2012 | 2:32pm
JMC says:
The first comment, by Joe DeVet, thoroughly notes the source of the problems Catholicism now faces in the US and I would turn around Archbishop Gomez's call at the end of his letter and say that it is not the laity that needs to step up, we need the bishops to step up to their responsibilities for the Church’s mission.
1.25.2012 | 3:23pm
Felapton says:
@Pat, you quote: "Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance under the law or pay penalties for not doing so."
You see, I'm right. Catholic organizations can stop providing health insurance and pay a little money in penalties. So can any business with 50 or more employees. Nobody is being "forced to violate their consciences" as the Archbishop of New York put it.
I don't think I'm intentionally clouding the issue. But I am disgusted by the demagogic rhetoric that is being used on this issue. ISTM most people who are outraged by this are really just outraged by the idea of the government's requiring anybody to do anything to remedy the fact that millions of American's don't have health insurance. The "religious liberty" and "freedom of conscience" angle is a disingenuous attempt to make people oppose the whole ACA, even if its main provisions would be very much in their interest.
Thinking it's not the government's role to help people get health insurance is a valid position, though one I happen to disagree with. But religious liberty and freedom of conscience should be beyond politics. They're far too important to be degraded into campaign buzzwords and lobbyistic sound-bites.
You say: "It's time to cut the mustard. I am Catholic. Either we live by our faith or we do not."
There, you see? Implying that Catholics are not living the Faith if they decline to lobby Congress to help the bishops save some money on this sort of legislative minutiae comes across as just plain hysterical, demagogic and politically motivated. It makes the Church look ridiculous.
You see, I'm right. Catholic organizations can stop providing health insurance and pay a little money in penalties. So can any business with 50 or more employees. Nobody is being "forced to violate their consciences" as the Archbishop of New York put it.
I don't think I'm intentionally clouding the issue. But I am disgusted by the demagogic rhetoric that is being used on this issue. ISTM most people who are outraged by this are really just outraged by the idea of the government's requiring anybody to do anything to remedy the fact that millions of American's don't have health insurance. The "religious liberty" and "freedom of conscience" angle is a disingenuous attempt to make people oppose the whole ACA, even if its main provisions would be very much in their interest.
Thinking it's not the government's role to help people get health insurance is a valid position, though one I happen to disagree with. But religious liberty and freedom of conscience should be beyond politics. They're far too important to be degraded into campaign buzzwords and lobbyistic sound-bites.
You say: "It's time to cut the mustard. I am Catholic. Either we live by our faith or we do not."
There, you see? Implying that Catholics are not living the Faith if they decline to lobby Congress to help the bishops save some money on this sort of legislative minutiae comes across as just plain hysterical, demagogic and politically motivated. It makes the Church look ridiculous.
1.25.2012 | 3:51pm
Edward G. Stafford says:
From the nanny state to the storm trooper state go we. Those who object will be labeled anti-progressive, reactionary, or metally deficient. Welcome Brave New World. Thanks to ABishop Gomez for the courage to speak out. Would that all our pastors would give us such guidance.
1.25.2012 | 3:57pm
pentamom says:
Felapton, by that logic, no one really is ever legally prevented from doing anything. As long as they pay a little fine, or sit in a cell for a few years, they're completely free to do it.
Okay, so the language "forced to violate their consciences" could be quibbled with. But the idea that they're being legally required to do it, if not "forced," is still at issue. And the government has no role in legally requiring people to violate their consciences without a compelling interest.
Can people step up, follow their consciences, and take the consequences? Sure. But why is there no place in a free society for calling out the government when it acts oppressively and wickedly?
Okay, so the language "forced to violate their consciences" could be quibbled with. But the idea that they're being legally required to do it, if not "forced," is still at issue. And the government has no role in legally requiring people to violate their consciences without a compelling interest.
Can people step up, follow their consciences, and take the consequences? Sure. But why is there no place in a free society for calling out the government when it acts oppressively and wickedly?
1.25.2012 | 4:03pm
Francis J. Beckwith says:
Felapton writes: "Catholic organizations can stop providing health insurance and pay a little money in penalties. So can any business with 50 or more employees. Nobody is being `forced to violate their consciences' as the Archbishop of New York put it."
The Catholic understanding of its obligation to its employees requires that it offer them health care. So, what you are suggesting is doubly worse: the Catholic Church may avoid violating its conscience but only by not exercising its obligation to care for its employees while paying a fine to the state for the trouble. Lovely.
Imagine there is no conscription exemption for Amish pacifists. For this reason, they say that they are "forced to violate their consciences." And you reply, "That's just demagogic. After all, you can refuse to register, spend a year in jail, and then you're free. See, the state has given you a wonderful way out of your dilemma." I would imagine that people of even ordinary wit would find this reply absurd and insulting.
It's not clear, by the way, why its the state and not the Church that should be passing out the exemptions. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the American bishops issued this statement, "After reviewing the HHS regulations, we have decided not to give the federal government an exemption in coercing us to violate our moral imperatives. We must obey God and not men."
The Catholic understanding of its obligation to its employees requires that it offer them health care. So, what you are suggesting is doubly worse: the Catholic Church may avoid violating its conscience but only by not exercising its obligation to care for its employees while paying a fine to the state for the trouble. Lovely.
Imagine there is no conscription exemption for Amish pacifists. For this reason, they say that they are "forced to violate their consciences." And you reply, "That's just demagogic. After all, you can refuse to register, spend a year in jail, and then you're free. See, the state has given you a wonderful way out of your dilemma." I would imagine that people of even ordinary wit would find this reply absurd and insulting.
It's not clear, by the way, why its the state and not the Church that should be passing out the exemptions. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the American bishops issued this statement, "After reviewing the HHS regulations, we have decided not to give the federal government an exemption in coercing us to violate our moral imperatives. We must obey God and not men."
1.25.2012 | 4:04pm
Rene says:
The bishop is right. I also believe that Joe DeVet is right about the bishops and other Catholic leaders. We should not be surprised that the US Church is reaping what it, to a large extent, sowed. I found it interesting that some of the Catholic leaders who helped pass Obamacare felt "dissapointed," rather than remorseful about their facilitation, regarding the Health Department's directives.
1.25.2012 | 5:27pm
Paul says:
I think Frank Beckwith is spot on. And from a natural law vantage, it seems to me that the federal government lacks the power to bind in conscience here.
1.25.2012 | 5:49pm
Paul says:
Even Thoreau would disagree with Felapton concerning refusing health care and paying a financial penalty that then supports a state system which financially supports those very acts Catholics cannot in conscience support. So either Catholic organizations financially underwrite things like abortifacients directly or they refuse to and pay a penalty to the state, supporting the state system, which underwrites abortion-causing drugs and so thereby support the use of such drugs indirectly--i.e., the choice such organizations are given is to financially underwrite the use of such drugs directly or indirectly. This is no choice at all. And so Beckwith is obviously correct--the only choice is to opt out of the choice. I don't much agree with Thoreau. But his minimalist approach to Civil Disobedience might repay consideration. Of course, Martin Luther King, Jr. is an even better guide here.
1.25.2012 | 6:18pm
Bill Russell says:
The bishops are indeed reaping the whirlwind that they have sown by their habit of putting a happy face on problems in hopes that they will go away. Only weeks ago, Archbishop Dolan came out of a meeting with President Obama saying that he felt "more at peace" having received reassurances from Obama. Had he never heard of Munich? Had he never heard of Chamberlain? - The "disappointed" archbishop now says that Obama telephoned him personally to inform him of his betrayal. That is not the audacity of hope. It is sheer audacity. Is there any Churchill out there ready to become a bishop?
1.25.2012 | 8:18pm
Chris says:
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a red herring for the White House. Let's announce this horrible idea, and then, as an act of "benevolence", pull it back as the election approaches. "See, Catholics can still vote for Obama; he's SENSITIVE to their needs..."
At any rate, it's my opinion that the Church needs to call their bluff, and announce that we simply won't comply.
At any rate, it's my opinion that the Church needs to call their bluff, and announce that we simply won't comply.
1.25.2012 | 8:35pm
Bill Langwasser says:
Fine, lets speak out! I will follow the lead of the bishops to the death, starting with the excommunication of Sebilus and all other Catholic politicians promoting and supporting abortion and anti-family programs. Are you going to lead Bishops????
1.25.2012 | 9:19pm
Bruce says:
How about hearing something from the pulpit so the average Joe can understand and explain to his non-Catholic coworkers what the Church teaches. We're some forty years late, but better late than never. With surveys for years showing that 90% or more Catholics in the US reject the teachings and contracept, some wonder why the bishops are only getting upset now. One might hope many bishops and priests wish they had preached more frequently (or ever) on the Church's teachings about the intrinsic evil of artificial contraception. I know very few Catholics, even weekly pew-sitters, who can coherently explain the teachings on this issue. Some believe that many bishops and priests do not believe the Church's teachings.
1.26.2012 | 12:05am
Richard Rodriguez says:
If the Government is big enough to give you something, then it is big enough
to take it away. If a Government is big enough to mandate or issue regulations
that take away your right to chose, then it is a Dictatorship. Is our current
leader taking us down that path?
Mr Vladimir Lenin (Communist Leader) said “The key to a successful Communist takeover
of a free society is for the State to get control of the health care system. It is
the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State".
Mr Felapton your logic worries me.
God Bless
to take it away. If a Government is big enough to mandate or issue regulations
that take away your right to chose, then it is a Dictatorship. Is our current
leader taking us down that path?
Mr Vladimir Lenin (Communist Leader) said “The key to a successful Communist takeover
of a free society is for the State to get control of the health care system. It is
the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State".
Mr Felapton your logic worries me.
God Bless
1.26.2012 | 2:58am
Don Roberto says:
Our shepherds fail us when they are so naive as to fall for the wiles of proven libertines, such as our president. Carefree sex has been the golden calf of our time. But as a baptist preacher at the West Coast Walk for Life pointed out, it is almost 40 years since Roe v. Wade—in fact, the 40th anniversary will land right around inauguration day . . . God willing, real change will follow.
1.26.2012 | 6:48am
edmond says:
To those who scoff at the idea of catholic persecution, where were you when they banned public prayer? And if that is not persecution to you then your requisites for persecution do date back to era of burning priests etc., so limited a view.
"But why is there no place in a free society for calling out the government when it acts oppressively and wickedly?" Try the "boiling frog" experiment for an explanantion.
"But why is there no place in a free society for calling out the government when it acts oppressively and wickedly?" Try the "boiling frog" experiment for an explanantion.
1.26.2012 | 7:49am
Felapton says:
"The Catholic understanding of its obligation to its employees requires that it offer them health care."
They can offer them health care by raising wages and salaries so the employees can buy it on the open market. Paying the penalty but not buying employer-provided insurance will leave the balance sheet quite a bit in the black.
Moreover, the obligation to pay for health care is hardly a point of doctrine. In various places on this planet, Church employees go without health care, rely on charitable organizations for health care, or pay taxes and use state health care systems. Traditionally, postulants to religious orders are kicked out if they develop expensive health conditions. Anybody willing to bet there aren't Catholic organizations out there right now hiring temps and subcontractors to get out of paying for health insurance?
" ... either Catholic organizations financially underwrite things like abortifacients directly or they refuse to and pay a penalty to the state, supporting the state system, which underwrites abortion-causing drugs and so thereby support the use of such drugs indirectly"
The penalty (which is minimal) is to help defray the cost of running exchanges, paying subsidies and otherwise running the health insurance system. It's no more "paying for abortifacients" than paying for trash collection is.
The Amish: Good, I concede this is a valid analogy. But sitting in a cell is an extreme hardship, which almost nobody is ever forced to do. (Under the old system, dodging the draft meant sometimes you had to pay to hire a replacement.) Forking over money to the government is pretty common and not much of a burden. My former landlord used to pay a penalty to the town government for not snow-blowing the sidewalk.
Isn't everybody's primary objection simply that you don't think the government should be involved in health insurance in the first place? Then why not just argue that point instead of hiding behind all this preposterous nonsense about being "persecuted" by "the state religion."
Remember that story about the boy who cried wolf? One of these days there may really be a religious persecution, and then everybody will yawn, "Oh, those Catholics, whenever somebody crosses his arms, they scream they're being martyred."
They can offer them health care by raising wages and salaries so the employees can buy it on the open market. Paying the penalty but not buying employer-provided insurance will leave the balance sheet quite a bit in the black.
Moreover, the obligation to pay for health care is hardly a point of doctrine. In various places on this planet, Church employees go without health care, rely on charitable organizations for health care, or pay taxes and use state health care systems. Traditionally, postulants to religious orders are kicked out if they develop expensive health conditions. Anybody willing to bet there aren't Catholic organizations out there right now hiring temps and subcontractors to get out of paying for health insurance?
" ... either Catholic organizations financially underwrite things like abortifacients directly or they refuse to and pay a penalty to the state, supporting the state system, which underwrites abortion-causing drugs and so thereby support the use of such drugs indirectly"
The penalty (which is minimal) is to help defray the cost of running exchanges, paying subsidies and otherwise running the health insurance system. It's no more "paying for abortifacients" than paying for trash collection is.
The Amish: Good, I concede this is a valid analogy. But sitting in a cell is an extreme hardship, which almost nobody is ever forced to do. (Under the old system, dodging the draft meant sometimes you had to pay to hire a replacement.) Forking over money to the government is pretty common and not much of a burden. My former landlord used to pay a penalty to the town government for not snow-blowing the sidewalk.
Isn't everybody's primary objection simply that you don't think the government should be involved in health insurance in the first place? Then why not just argue that point instead of hiding behind all this preposterous nonsense about being "persecuted" by "the state religion."
Remember that story about the boy who cried wolf? One of these days there may really be a religious persecution, and then everybody will yawn, "Oh, those Catholics, whenever somebody crosses his arms, they scream they're being martyred."
1.26.2012 | 11:13am
Randy says:
So many are pointing out that Catholic bishops are not politically pure in that many have supported democrat politicians in the past. So what? Religious freedom is not just for those who voted correctly. It is for all. The Germans elected Hitler. Does that make his human rights violations OK? It just seems like a silly thing to bring up. Lots of bitterness from yesterday's political battles and no vision for the future of the nation.
1.26.2012 | 1:11pm
Paul says:
The penalty is not minimal. But whether or not it's minimal says nothing one way or other to the justice/rightness of it. So the size of the fine is a red herring. Second, the money goes to the cost of running exchanges that take that money to provide the very things the provision of which is, for Catholics, contrary to conscience. Last, I'm not crying wolf. I'm not Catholic. I just think Catholics are being treated unfairly here. I'm a bit surprised Felapton doesn't see it. Or maybe Felapton does, which explains why false analogies (like the collection of trash) are being employed as if they were counter-arguments. I don't think a thinking person could take that counter seriously.
1.26.2012 | 1:34pm
Pat says:
Felapton, calling people names, creating rhetoric and arguing to manipulate is a sign of someone that's trying to cloud the issue for whatever purpose you have. And it's kid of sad where there is nothing to argue.
The Roman Church has never changed its stand in regards to birth control, so yes, it's a matter of faith (not health care or monetary issues) and tenents of the Catholic Faith.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
So no political pressure or ethical manipulation is going to change the stand of Catholic Church. It's easy as that.
The Roman Church has never changed its stand in regards to birth control, so yes, it's a matter of faith (not health care or monetary issues) and tenents of the Catholic Faith.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
So no political pressure or ethical manipulation is going to change the stand of Catholic Church. It's easy as that.
1.26.2012 | 1:52pm
Alecto says:
I applaud this and Archbishop Dolan's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. I don't believe most Americans, let alone Catholics, who voted by a majority of 54% for Obama, understand that this is not simply a case of denial of First Amendment free exercise guarantees. It seems the majority of Catholics are more interested in socialist policies than in salvation. Perhaps these people should be asked to renounce their support for abortion, artificial contraception and gay marraige or be asked to leave? If the clergy with the entire membership does not oppose this by every available means, next our freedom of assembly, our freedom of speech, our right to a speedy and fair trial and innumerable other rights given by our Creator, and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are in danger of disappearing. Sorry, but right to healthcare and a living wage job aren't among them, Archbishop. Pandering to politicians to legislate such "rights" actually diminishes the truly important rights like free exercise. And, here we are.
Often the cowardly and arrogant Catholic clergy has denegrated those of us who live on the Right because they were more interested in keeping up appearances and being liked by famous, powerful people. That was not a Christ-like example but when has the clergy ever been better than the people it served? They laughed at us and criticized us when we raised important issues like the double standards set for "Catholic in Name Only" politicians.
I would hope that the clergy vocally support those of us who simply want Catholic doctrine and teaching applied uniformly to all Catholics. We have been in the trenches, fighting these battles for decades with Roe v. Wade and other anti-life rulings while bishops jetted off to conferences and held press conferences slamming Republicans for daring to live within our means. Now with the onslaught of gay marriage legislation, we are overwhelmed. We need fresh troops.
Often the cowardly and arrogant Catholic clergy has denegrated those of us who live on the Right because they were more interested in keeping up appearances and being liked by famous, powerful people. That was not a Christ-like example but when has the clergy ever been better than the people it served? They laughed at us and criticized us when we raised important issues like the double standards set for "Catholic in Name Only" politicians.
I would hope that the clergy vocally support those of us who simply want Catholic doctrine and teaching applied uniformly to all Catholics. We have been in the trenches, fighting these battles for decades with Roe v. Wade and other anti-life rulings while bishops jetted off to conferences and held press conferences slamming Republicans for daring to live within our means. Now with the onslaught of gay marriage legislation, we are overwhelmed. We need fresh troops.
1.26.2012 | 6:02pm
Mick Leahy says:
Looking at this from the Eastern side of the Atlantic, it does appear that despite the efforts of Archbishop Gomez, the issue is much broader and more deap-seated than the admittedly horrific issue of forced facilitation of contraception, sterilisation, and so on. The Second Vatican Council has been sinisterly misinterpreted as directing the Church to the issues of this world, forgetting that Christ said His Kingdom was not of this world. The Bishops must stop trying to be social workers, start preaching the Gospel, and stop trying to compromise with Caeser. If this means a return to the catacombs, so be it. Please God it won't come to this.
1.26.2012 | 8:28pm
Philothea says:
Felapton writes: They can offer them health care by raising wages and salaries so the employees can buy it on the open market. Paying the penalty but not buying employer-provided insurance will leave the balance sheet quite a bit in the black.
Wake up and smell the roses. Health insurance is very expensive, esp if you are buying it as a single person or family--large organizations get group rates. So you think that Catholic institutions can just give their employees a raise to cover their (much higher) insurance payments *and* pay $2000 per employee.
You do understand that most of these Catholic organizations are either charitable or related to the adminstration of the Church? While you may be able to afford to increase your contributions to the Church and to the Catholic charities involved, most of us can't, esp in this bad economic climate.
Labor costs are already at least 1/3rd over the actual gross amount that appears on the paycheck and constitute a large percentage of the costs. This will be an increase that may well be impossible for these organizations to absorb.
Moreover, how long do you think it will be before all hospitals are rwquired to provide the morning-after pill, contraceptove counseling and prescriptions, and abortions?
The Church provides about 12%, one sixth, of the health care in the US, on a non-profit basis. Imagine if that sixth were suddenly taken out of the pocture, or if it suddenly became for-profit.
Wake up and smell the roses. Health insurance is very expensive, esp if you are buying it as a single person or family--large organizations get group rates. So you think that Catholic institutions can just give their employees a raise to cover their (much higher) insurance payments *and* pay $2000 per employee.
You do understand that most of these Catholic organizations are either charitable or related to the adminstration of the Church? While you may be able to afford to increase your contributions to the Church and to the Catholic charities involved, most of us can't, esp in this bad economic climate.
Labor costs are already at least 1/3rd over the actual gross amount that appears on the paycheck and constitute a large percentage of the costs. This will be an increase that may well be impossible for these organizations to absorb.
Moreover, how long do you think it will be before all hospitals are rwquired to provide the morning-after pill, contraceptove counseling and prescriptions, and abortions?
The Church provides about 12%, one sixth, of the health care in the US, on a non-profit basis. Imagine if that sixth were suddenly taken out of the pocture, or if it suddenly became for-profit.
1.27.2012 | 1:23am
Mrs Baker says:
Wake the Sleeping Giant!
Bishops, priests, and lay people: The drums of battle have begun beating. Are we ready to rise to the call???
Let's face it, when we hear the statistics that the majority of American Cathlolics voted for Obama, is it any wonder that God allowed this wake up call to happen?
Bishops, priests, and lay people: The drums of battle have begun beating. Are we ready to rise to the call???
Let's face it, when we hear the statistics that the majority of American Cathlolics voted for Obama, is it any wonder that God allowed this wake up call to happen?
1.30.2012 | 2:14pm
Jim Sanders says:
I agree with Mrs. Baker. We are heading towards dark times indeed. If this trend continues American Catholics may be a distant memory instead of the most prominent religious in America.
1.30.2012 | 5:51pm
Boh says:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out --
Because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to out speak for me.
This quote was written by Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Does it really matter what one perceives our Bishops to have done or not done in the past? Does all this rhetoric being bandied about really matter? It is causing us to lose track of the single, most important issue, our Catholic Faith is being attacked. So when do we stop talking about it and get busy DOING something about it? Because if the government can do this to the largest Church in the nation, they can certainly do it to others. It is time to act now before “there (is) no one left to speak out for me”. Our greatest sin has been apathy, to believe this will never happen to me and if it doesn, someone else will take care of it. There IS NO ONE ELSE, it is up to you and me.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out --
Because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to out speak for me.
This quote was written by Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Does it really matter what one perceives our Bishops to have done or not done in the past? Does all this rhetoric being bandied about really matter? It is causing us to lose track of the single, most important issue, our Catholic Faith is being attacked. So when do we stop talking about it and get busy DOING something about it? Because if the government can do this to the largest Church in the nation, they can certainly do it to others. It is time to act now before “there (is) no one left to speak out for me”. Our greatest sin has been apathy, to believe this will never happen to me and if it doesn, someone else will take care of it. There IS NO ONE ELSE, it is up to you and me.
2.1.2012 | 12:23pm
Gerald Hunter says:
Across North America, there is an attempt to redefine freedom of religion as freedom of worship. This is, of course, an enormous restriction of the freedom, and that restriction is reflected by bureaucrats who regard anything that churches do, other than conduct services of worship, as a non-religious activity. We must not mistake this for indifference or lack of understanding. It is outright hostility.
2.1.2012 | 5:42pm
John Holecek says:
Shades of the former USSR. From 1984 until 1990, I worked for Underground Evangelism, a Protestant mission to persecuted Christians (mainly Baptists and Pentecostals) in Communist countries. All above-ground Christian activities were limited to worship only, which the Communists touted as religious freedom. The same logic applies to the healthcare mandate. As long as it's worship only among your fellow believers, you are exempt, but don't dare stray into the public sphere with your concerns or beliefs.
By the way, Joe DeVet makes some very good points.
By the way, Joe DeVet makes some very good points.
2.1.2012 | 7:24pm
readering says:
If this is such a big moral issue, why is it being reported as a fight between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church only? Where do all the other religious institutions, Christian and other, stand on this issue?
There was an interesting exchange between an ABC News questioner and Mitt Romney at a recent debate when the Governor was pressed on his position on birth control and the federal bill of rights. The LDS Governor reacted by treating the entire subject as crazy talk in this day and age.
The Church's problem is that on the subject of birth control it is so far out of touch with the rest of mainstream ethical thinking, including with the overwhelming number of lay Catholic women, that few non-Catholics who aren't against Obama anyway for other reasons, and will pick up any stick with which to beat him, can fathom how this can really be a serious question of religious liberty. Especially when there was no similar outcry anywhere else in the Western World--where universal healthcare coverage is universal--over such issues (excepting perhaps Ireland).
Of course, when I read comments blaming the Church for all this for having lost its way by focusing any energy on issues of economic justice in the Twentieth Century, I really wonder what kind of education in the Catholic faith was being transmitted.
Personally, I think the administration is making a serious mistake to get into an entirely predictable fight with the Catholic hierarchy on an issue relating to its most charitable side. The administration made much more serious compromises in order to advance its basic healthcare agenda. But when historians look back to on the decline of the Church, they will all spend a chapter on Humanae Vitae, which set Catholicism apart from the rest of Christianity and its own flock. They will probably contrast the Church's reconciliation on civil divorce/annulments, etc. (Newt and Callista Gingrich, anyone?) with its failure to reconcile on individual conscience for methods of birth control.
There was an interesting exchange between an ABC News questioner and Mitt Romney at a recent debate when the Governor was pressed on his position on birth control and the federal bill of rights. The LDS Governor reacted by treating the entire subject as crazy talk in this day and age.
The Church's problem is that on the subject of birth control it is so far out of touch with the rest of mainstream ethical thinking, including with the overwhelming number of lay Catholic women, that few non-Catholics who aren't against Obama anyway for other reasons, and will pick up any stick with which to beat him, can fathom how this can really be a serious question of religious liberty. Especially when there was no similar outcry anywhere else in the Western World--where universal healthcare coverage is universal--over such issues (excepting perhaps Ireland).
Of course, when I read comments blaming the Church for all this for having lost its way by focusing any energy on issues of economic justice in the Twentieth Century, I really wonder what kind of education in the Catholic faith was being transmitted.
Personally, I think the administration is making a serious mistake to get into an entirely predictable fight with the Catholic hierarchy on an issue relating to its most charitable side. The administration made much more serious compromises in order to advance its basic healthcare agenda. But when historians look back to on the decline of the Church, they will all spend a chapter on Humanae Vitae, which set Catholicism apart from the rest of Christianity and its own flock. They will probably contrast the Church's reconciliation on civil divorce/annulments, etc. (Newt and Callista Gingrich, anyone?) with its failure to reconcile on individual conscience for methods of birth control.
2.1.2012 | 7:55pm
Alan Aversa says:
"there is no evidence that birth control has any effect on women’s health"
Actually, the World Health Organization classifies the "The Pill" (Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptive) as a Group 1 Carcinogen, the most carcinogenic substances for humans like asbestos, nicotine, and benzene.
And abortion (yes, that's birth control, too) is correlated with increased breast cancer risk.
Actually, the World Health Organization classifies the "The Pill" (Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptive) as a Group 1 Carcinogen, the most carcinogenic substances for humans like asbestos, nicotine, and benzene.
And abortion (yes, that's birth control, too) is correlated with increased breast cancer risk.
2.1.2012 | 10:44pm
Peter J. Colosi says:
It seems to me good to emphasize the point that this is a matter pertaining to freedom in America. However, it does not seem to me wise to downplay the question concerning the nature of contraception, as when the Bishop says, "But the issues here go far beyond contraception..." Why not take this opportunity as a chance for priests, Bishops and laity to give the "convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society" which is "a primary task of the Church in your country ", as the Pope asked? The country must be wondering after all this hubub, what the heck the Church actually thinks about contraception, or they might at least, at this very moment, be more open to hearing if her ideas make any sense. The Bishop asked here for lay people to get involved in this issue, my contribution is the talk at the link below, in which I try to explain from the point of view of love and Christian personalism the beauty and goodness of the Church's prohibition of contraception,
http://peterjcolosi.com/?p=235
http://peterjcolosi.com/?p=235
2.1.2012 | 11:05pm
Luis says:
1. Joe DeVet fails to mention, in his congratulations to Archbishop Gomez, that it is much more complicated for him to manage the Archdiocese of Hollywood after mahoney's inept and liberal tutelage.
2. Felaptoa is a sad, innocent child if she thinks that Archbishop Gomez is misinformed: He is well informed, not only on the immediate attempts by Obama/Sebelius to cripple, or even eliminate, the Catholic effect on public health, but on the philosophy that this pig, Obama, and this heretic, Sebelius, hold: The same philosophy of Alinsky and Marx, eliminate religion from affecting public policy.
2. Felaptoa is a sad, innocent child if she thinks that Archbishop Gomez is misinformed: He is well informed, not only on the immediate attempts by Obama/Sebelius to cripple, or even eliminate, the Catholic effect on public health, but on the philosophy that this pig, Obama, and this heretic, Sebelius, hold: The same philosophy of Alinsky and Marx, eliminate religion from affecting public policy.
2.5.2012 | 5:58pm
Tota Tua says:
the biggest problem is that in order to fulfill the definition of a religious org, one has to have mostly employees of the faith of the employer, but it is against fed rules for employers to ask one's religious affiliation, so how does one know if a potential employee will enhance or detract from an employers eligibility as a religious employer … does your head hurt yet?
2.8.2012 | 10:31am
kate says:
What about the conscience of the Catholic business owner - who has a business unidentified as Catholic in any way but who objects to purchasing health insurance that conforms to these requirements on the basis of religious conscience. Are the bishops going to defend the conscience of the individual as well?
Unfortunately, many bishops have failed to recognize the danger of intrusive, coercive government until it actually intrudes and coerces religious institutions - the bigger the government the more hazardous it is to individual liberty. The use of government to enforce economic "justice" removes charity and generosity from the equation - and allows the expansion of government to a dangerous degree.
I am delighted to see the bishops unified on this issue but fear that they will eventually be placated with some concession from Obama and be duped into further support of an expanding and intrusive vision of government.
Unfortunately, many bishops have failed to recognize the danger of intrusive, coercive government until it actually intrudes and coerces religious institutions - the bigger the government the more hazardous it is to individual liberty. The use of government to enforce economic "justice" removes charity and generosity from the equation - and allows the expansion of government to a dangerous degree.
I am delighted to see the bishops unified on this issue but fear that they will eventually be placated with some concession from Obama and be duped into further support of an expanding and intrusive vision of government.
2.8.2012 | 1:45pm
Throx says:
This is not the first action this administration has taken without congress to remove previously enjoyed liberities, but it is the largest action taken thus far. It has put any who will observe on notice there is no issue or group that cannot be steamrolled into compliance/submission or be judged to be outside of 'the law', with 'the law' being what this administration decides 'the law' should be.
And Mr. DeVet is spot on with his observations that many of the 'takings' were cheered on by the church, all in the name of 'social justice'. No one has explained how the teachings of individual salvation find common theme with social justice, when social justice requires the state to take something away for the benefit of another. Freewill offering is one thing and is to be the example; legislated taking always cooks someone else's goose. Your group or idea may be favored today, but tomorrow will bring unpleasant surprises. The Church is seeing firsthand what that means as it examines the smooth walls of the roasting pan.
And Mr. DeVet is spot on with his observations that many of the 'takings' were cheered on by the church, all in the name of 'social justice'. No one has explained how the teachings of individual salvation find common theme with social justice, when social justice requires the state to take something away for the benefit of another. Freewill offering is one thing and is to be the example; legislated taking always cooks someone else's goose. Your group or idea may be favored today, but tomorrow will bring unpleasant surprises. The Church is seeing firsthand what that means as it examines the smooth walls of the roasting pan.
However, the US bishops have largely brought this turn of events on themselves. First, by smiling benignly while anti-life positions of many Catholics in politics ran rampant and unopposed. (Nancy Pelosi continues to receive communion in San Francisco and at the Catholic national shrine in Washington, DC, for example. The response to her and her ilk is still feckless and embarrassing.) Second, by muddled priorities offered to Catholic voters, such that life issues are lost in a sea of leftish "social-justice" issues. Third, by voting for Obama themselves (according to one bishop's observation, as reported recently on this blog--Blind Guides!) Fourth, by lobbying for decades for socialized medicine, a palpable public-policy evil. (Yes, they had a few problems with Obamacare, but were in favor of it overall--as a result, the objections came out muddled and confused, leaving them vulnerable to false promises--remember Obama's "executive order" sham?) And fifth, by wasting their moral authority on dubious and economically naive left-oriented lobbying of all kinds over many years.
Let us pray that we can somehow turn back the current tide of anti-Catholic persecution, which threatens the broad common good of society. But let us recognize our own collective collaboration in bringing the persecution on ourselves. It's within our own power to turn that around.